Free Movement of Workers (Article 45 TFEU)

Question 1

Which case established that Article 45 TFEU has direct effect?

Answer 1

Van Duyn

Question 2

What is the basic definition of a worker?

Answer 2

(a) Someone who performs a service for another person, (b) under the control of that person, and (c) receives remuneration (Lawrie-Blum).

Question 3

Which case ruled that a person seeking work also came within the scope of Article 45 TFEU?

Answer 3

Antonissen

Question 4

Which case determined that part-time workers can come within the scope of Article 45 TFEU?

Answer 4

Levin: their work must be ‘effective and genuine’ and not on such a small scale that is can be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary.

Question 5

Which three cases expanded on Levin in discussion of part-time workers?

Answer 5

Kempf (a part-time worker is still a worker even if they supplement their income with State benefits); Steymann (an unpaid worker for a religious community could still be a worker as their work contributes towards the community’s economic activity); Bettray (work carried out by individuals as part of State rehabilitation schemes are not workers).

Question 6

Which case held that Article 45 TFEU does not apply in a totally internal situation?

Answer 6

Saunders

Question 7

Which case held that nationality is to be determined solely by Member State laws?

Answer 7

Micheletti

Question 8

What are the three important cases that deal with the spouses of Union citizens?

Answer 8

Diatta determined that spouses need not live in the same accommodation; Sandhu held that a non-Union citizen spouse loses their right to remain in the host State once their migrant worker spouse has left the country; Surrinder Singh held that a spouse of a Union citizen returning to their home state has the same rights of entry and residence as a spouse of a Union citizen who is moving to another Member State.

Question 9

Which case determined that past convictions are only relevant as far as the person constitutes a present threat?

Answer 9

Bouchereau

Question 10

Which case held that a Member State cannot refuse residence to a non-national for a reason that is not held against nationals?

Answer 10

Adoui

Question 11

Which case showed that human rights considerations may assist a person’s attempt to fight exclusion or deportation?

Answer 11

Carpenter

Question 12

Which case established that association with a group or body can constitute ‘personal conduct’?

Answer 12

Van Duyn: notion of activities which are ‘socially harmful’.

Question 13

Conditions relating to linguistic knowledge may often be permissible.

Answer 13

Groener

Question 14

What did Cristini confirm?

Answer 14

That social advantages must be interpreted widely to cover all social and tax advantages whether contractual or otherwise.

Question 15

An example of an indirectly discriminatory indistinctly applicable measure.

Answer 15

Allué

Question 16

An example of a non-discriminatory indistinctly applicable measure

Answer 16

Bosman

Question 17

Which case concerns the very narrow scope given to ‘employment in the public service’ by the ECJ?

Answer 17

Commission v Belgium (Avocats)

Question 18

Which Treaty Article concerns citizenship of the Union?

Answer 18

Article 21 TFEU

Question 19

Which case held that Article 21 TFEU has direct effect?

Answer 19

Baumbast

Question 20

What three cases might Article 21 TFEU be especially useful in?

Answer 20

Granting rights of residence where most specific rights of free movement have ceased (Baumbast); prohibiting discrimination against Union citizens from other Member States (Grzelczyk and Danny Bidar); extending residence rights to family members not covered by Directive 2004/38 (Zhu and Chen).